Editorial | A good choice

At first glance, the College Board's decision to implement "Score Choice" - whereby students can selectively send only the score from their highest SAT sitting to the schools of their choice - sounds like a godsend. Under the policy, the student can take the test multiple times and give only the best day of scores to colleges. It's a chance to put the best foot forward, not unlike selecting a favored teacher to write a recommendation or editing an essay before sending. But Penn Admissions has said students must report all scores, not just those artificially improving their applications' appearances.

This is a good move, because the new policy is discriminatory. SATs are included in an admissions packet ostensibly to provide a quantitative counterbalance to glowing recommendations and revised essays. However, it's easily teachable, with a whole cottage industry of test-prep firms ready to tell students who can pay how to improve their scores on the test. The wealthy ones, who are able to shell out the cash for private tutoring or attend schools with test-prep curricula, already have a major advantage over poor students.

The implementation of Score Choice only increases this divide. Each SAT sitting costs $45 this year, and many students find that multiple sittings increase their scores. But four sittings cost nearly $200, which for lower-income families could be better spent on myriad daily expenses. Students who can afford to take the test multiple times, especially after paying for tutoring, should not appear to colleges to be on the same field as students who are only able to pay for one sitting. Admissions to college should be a meritocracy, and Score Choice gives the advantaged yet another leg up.

Multiple facets comprise an admissions decision, and Score Choice distorts several of them.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.